Immigration to the UK - do you have concerns?

[zedr]

We pay them to do it.

That said, every so often the French Police aux Frontieres in Calais give themselves the night off and let the traffickers bring a few hundred people over.

Yep. Its a useful way for them to persuade the UK govt that they need more resources. Its not a coincidence that in the days after the Brexit vote hundreds of people managed to get across.

And on the topic of Calais, its a fucking hellhole for asylum seekers. Now I wouldn't necessarily say this to people who are claiming that asylum seekers should stay in the first safe country because its probably more of a smug argument than a persuasive one, but it pisses me off because traveling across Europe is fraught and dangerous for asylum seekers.

They are hounded by the state, bigots and smuggling gangs. At each point they try to stop they're usually treated like absolute shite and for those who have arrived at Calais they have either been forced, or decided to move on numerous times. And once they finally get to Calais they have to spend their nights hiding from the CRS who want to slash or burn their tents, spray them with CS gas and beat them just enough to scare them away. They then have to fork out a few thousand quid or get into some nightmarish debt to get across on yet another boat.

What I think is unconscionable about Yvette Cooper in particular at the moment is that she knows this. She's been to the refugee camps in Calais a number of times, she's read reports of the CRS brutally attacking asylum seekers, yet all she can muster is more 'stop the boats' and 'send them to detention centers' bullshit without any mention for providing safe routes for people to claim asylum.

 

[emanymton]

No. My suggestion is twofold. One; that a basic understanding of the language of the country you've chosen to become a citizen of is not an unreasonable requirement, and that people who believe this are not (necessarily) racists. Two; removing that requirement would send a terrible message to the people we're trying to stop from voting Reform. We'd be telling them that we don't care about their concerns.

I think your first point is a separate issue, and while I don't really agree I can see why it makes some snese.

Your explanation of your second point is a bit differnt from your earlier post.

No. But you are addressing a different issue here.

I want to address one of the concerns of people who are considering voting Reform, and take away a perceived reason for them to do so. You want to tell them their concerns are bollocks, so fuck off.

I was reacting to you saying that you want to take away a perceived reason for them to vote reform, which is exactly the sort of thinking that got us where we are and the sort of thinking that gave us these tests.

Your explanation now souds a bit more passive, less that having it is good (for this reason at least) but that getting rid of it would be bad. Again I don't really agree, in fact right now I'd say pissing them off would be an added bonus. But it still reflects the sort of approach that got us here.

 

[SpookyFrank]

What was the effect of introducing them in the first place? What has been the effect of changing the citizenship procedure from a relatively simple and inexpensive process that you could complete at a solicitor's office for a couple of hundred quid into a bloated process containing a bunch of hoops to jump through that costs more than two grand?

All the people with 'concerns about immigration' were happy with these developments, and stopped whining about foreigners not speaking English or not integrating with British culture.

Or that's what would have happened if these concerns were in any way rational. What actually happens is that bitter, angry cunts are still bitter, angry cunts no matter what is done to appease them. The only thing that changes is life gets worse for lots of other people. And it's never enough, and never will be. Might as well tell these people, your concerns are dogshit and so are you. They'll be angry either way, but this way we'd not be rewarding their dogshit behaviour with lots of concern and attention.

 

[Spymaster]

Good.

Well there you go.

You're part of the problem.

 

[Spymaster]

What was the effect of introducing them in the first place? What has been the effect of changing the citizenship procedure from a relatively simple and inexpensive process that you could complete at a solicitor's office for a couple of hundred quid into a bloated process containing a bunch of hoops to jump through that costs more than two grand?

You'll not get any arguments from me that the citizenship procedure isn't overcomplicated and too expensive. Different issue though.

 

[Spymaster]

I was reacting to you saying that you want to take away a perceived reason for them to vote reform, which is exactly the sort of thinking that got us where we are and the sort of thinking that gave us these tests.

That is the case.

I agree with the tests.

 

[SpookyFrank]

. She's been to the refugee camps in Calais a number of times, she's read reports of the CRS brutally attacking asylum seekers, yet all she can muster is more 'stop the boats' and 'send them to detention centers' bullshit without any mention for providing safe routes for people to claim asylum.

Because the strategy of endlessly appeasing ignorant racists gives her no other alternative. This bullshit of responding to fake concerns with real policies has made it politically impossible to say, 'these people are human, they deserve better'.

This is not to let Cooper off the hook of course. She could very easily say exactly that if she weren't more concerned with political expediency than with right and wrong.

 

[Spymaster]

I'd be interested to know if you managed to persuade Dave that NF was racist but don't feel like you need to share if you cba.

To be honest, I'm not sure that I have yet. This was in June and I haven't seen him much since. We're going away in a couple of weeks and I'll see where he is then.

 

[Spymaster]

Or that's what would have happened if these concerns were in any way rational. What actually happens is that bitter, angry cunts are still bitter, angry cunts no matter what is done to appease them. The only thing that changes is life gets worse for lots of other people. And it's never enough, and never will be. Might as well tell these people, your concerns are dogshit and so are you.

People like you are as dangerous as they are. Perhaps more so. Many of them can probably be reasoned with.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You'll not get any arguments from me that the citizenship procedure isn't overcomplicated and too expensive. Different issue though.

I don't think it is a different issue. This shit was introduced by the Blair government as part of their attempt to look tough and appease concerns about immigration.

 

[Spymaster]

I don't think it is a different issue. This shit was introduced by the Blair government as part of their attempt to look tough and appease concerns about immigration.

And I disagree with some of those measures.

Not the tests though.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Or that's what would have happened if these concerns were in any way rational. What actually happens is that bitter, angry cunts are still bitter, angry cunts no matter what is done to appease them. The only thing that changes is life gets worse for lots of other people. And it's never enough, and never will be. Might as well tell these people, your concerns are dogshit and so are you. They'll be angry either way, but this way we'd not be rewarding their dogshit behaviour with lots of concern and attention.

Then what?

 

[krtek a houby]

The only thing that changes is life gets worse for lots of other people. And it's never enough, and never will be. Might as well tell these people, your concerns are dogshit and so are you.

Is anyone addressing the concerns of the people who were attacked and had their lodgings set alight?

 

[Spymaster]

Then what?

Frank is no different to the people who aren't worth engaging with on the right.

 

[Spymaster]

Is anyone addressing the concerns of the people who were attacked and had their lodgings set alight?

You mean like arresting and banging-up the fuckers that did it?

 

[SpookyFrank]

Then what?

Then we'll have removed a key source of positive reinforcement for shit ideas and shit behaviour.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Is anyone addressing the concerns of the people who were attacked and had their lodgings set alight?

No, we're all too busy trying to think of ways to make the arsonists feel heard.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Frank is no different to the people who aren't worth engaging with on the right.

I'm in interested to learn the strategy once everyone has been told, your concerns are dogshit and so are you. Presumably racism ends?

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Then we'll have removed a key source of positive reinforcement for shit ideas and shit behaviour.

Then what?

 

[zedr]

Is anyone addressing the concerns of the people who were attacked and had their lodgings set alight?

Don't know if this was rhetorical or not, but yes. At a local level there are numerous small groups/charities/locals trying to offer support and solidarity to those attacked an affected.

Less so at a national level because our justice system focuses on punishing perpetrators rather than supporting victims and our politicians are bastards.

 

[Spymaster]

Then we'll have removed a key source of positive reinforcement for shit ideas and shit behaviour.

"Telling people their concerns are dogshit and so are they, removes the source of the concerns".

Christ

 

[Sue]

What was the effect of introducing them in the first place? What has been the effect of changing the citizenship procedure from a relatively simple and inexpensive process that you could complete at a solicitor's office for a couple of hundred quid into a bloated process containing a bunch of hoops to jump through that costs more than two grand?

I think requiring people who want to become UK citizens to have a basic grasp of one of* the languages of the country is fair enough. It's a pretty standard thing.

If you want French or Spanish citizenship, for example, you need to show some competence in French or Spanish. I've a friend who's learning German just now because he's moved to a German-speaking Swiss canton and he needs it for residency (not sure of the exact details but this definitely isn't for citizenship right now).

It's very difficult to live in a country without speaking the language. It makes it extremely hard to get work, find housing, understand how things work, get help if you need it. If you don't speak the local language, you're also potentially ripe for exploitation by people who do speak your language as well as the local language and who do know how things work.

So sure, the language requirement may not mean people speak and write English fluently. But it should mean they have some level of understanding. Could the current way of checking/measuring this be improved? Could there be better provision for supporting people to learn English? Sure. But per se, I'm honestly not really sure why people are up in arms about this.

*Let's not exclude Gaelic and Welsh though realistically, the vast majority of people will be doing English as they may already know some and are also way more likely to be in a majority English-speaking area.

 

[krtek a houby]

Don't know if this was rhetorical or not, but yes. At a local level there are numerous small groups/charities/locals trying to offer support and solidarity to those attacked an affected.

Less so at a national level because our justice system focuses on punishing perpetrators rather than supporting victims and our politicians are bastards.

The lack of gratitude from certain politicians towards the antifascists, activists and various communities who protected the newcomers, stood up to the attackers and would be attackers, was a disgrace.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think requiring people who want to become UK citizens to have a basic grasp of one of* the languages of the country is fair enough. It's a pretty standard thing.

If you want French or Spanish citizenship, for example, you need to show some competence in French or Spanish. I've a friend who's learning German just now because he's moved to a German-speaking Swiss canton and he needs it for residency (not sure of the exact details but this definitely isn't for citizenship right now).

It's very difficult to live in a country without speaking the language. It makes it extremely hard to get work, find housing, understand how things work, get help if you need it. If you don't speak the local language, you're also potentially ripe for exploitation by people who do speak your language as well as the local language and who do know how things work.

So sure, the language requirement may not mean people speak and write English fluently. But it should mean they have some level of understanding. Could the current way of checking/measuring this be improved? Could there be better provision for supporting people to learn English? Sure. But per se, I'm honestly not really sure why people are up in arms about this.

*Let's not exclude Gaelic and Welsh though reaslistically, the vast majority of people will be doing English as they may already know some and are also way more likely to be in a majority English-speaking area.

That's not the question I asked, though. My question involved the way the citizenship process has changed in the last 20-odd years, increasing the cost tenfold. Why was it done and what effect did it have? That was my question regarding this.

The broader point involved the ways in which concerns about immigration have been pandered to, which includes the absurd way the citizenship process has been bloated out among other things, and the effect these have had.

 

[zedr]

The lack of gratitude from certain politicians towards the antifascists, activists and various communities who protected the newcomers, stood up to the attackers and would be attackers, was a disgrace.

Meh, couldn't really give a fuck if politicians appreciated the antifascist turnout. I'd much rather they stopped actively being part of the problem than used the moment as a cynical photo op.

 

[Sue]

That's not the question I asked, though. My question involved the way the citizenship process has changed in the last 20-odd years, increasing the cost tenfold. Why was it done and what effect did it have? That was my question regarding this.

The broader point involved the ways in which concerns about immigration have been pandered to, which includes the absurd way the citizenship process has been bloated out among other things, and the effect these have had.

But you think the language requirement at least is reasonable? Or not?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But you think the language requirement at least is reasonable? Or not?

I think people who wish to become British citizens but cannot speak English should be offered support to help them to learn.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I'm in interested to learn the strategy once everyone has been told, your concerns are dogshit and so are you. Presumably racism ends?

That wasn't a genuine strategy idea. But it is exactly as likely to work as the current, real strategy of creating public policies to try to appease racists. Even if your only criterion for success is getting the racists to stop complaining, both strategies have an equal 0% chance of success.

 

[chilango]

Still the correct response imho.

 

[Spymaster]

I think people who wish to become British citizens but cannot speak English should be offered support to help them to learn.

That's not an answer to the question you were asked, is it?